hermes_approve_document

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses important preconditions (status requirements, approver requirement) and the authenticated-user context. However, it does not state the outcome of approval (e.g., status changes to 'Approved') or any reversibility or response behavior, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, followed by conditions and a helpful pre-call instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: the action, valid input source, preconditions, and a verification step. It does not explain the response or post-approval state, but the provided guidance is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description already explains document_id as the SharePoint objectID and where to obtain it. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Approve a document in Hermes as the currently authenticated user.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like hermes_update_document or hermes_request_review by stating the approval action and the required document status and approver role.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives strong context on when to call the tool: the document must be 'In-Review' or 'Approved' and the user must be an approver. It also instructs to use hermes_get_document to check status and approver list first. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.